Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1952
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/02/03 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1952 Sat 03 February 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
internet virus - look out (Jerry Lee)
DMS priming/ "Partial" decoction? ("David C. Rinker")
Wort Aeration ("Jonathan Mohn")
Re: Cornstarch & Boiling / Long Mash (Jim Dipalma)
galvanized pipes ("Keith Royster")
Carbonation and fill level ... more experiments. (Steve Alexander)
Cleaning a carboy. (Russell Mast)
Extract/Pressure Ferments (Jim Busch)
Thermocouple contamination / Foxx Phone (Lynn Ashley)
Re: Canned Homebrew? ("William Ryan")
More on Grain Volume & Heat Capacity -- Correction (KennyEddy)
Re: bumping up starters ("Randall S. Thiel")
RE: flocculation ("David W. Parkin")
Krauesening, O-ring lube (LaBorde, Ronald)
Slow cool/late aeration/aeration vs. oxidation (Algis R Korzonas)
Aeration (Bill Pemberton)
kegs (Robert Rogers)
fermentation under pressure (Andy Walsh)
Brew Software - I Need Your Input! ("Clark D. Ritchie")
Travel (djfitzg)
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:50:14 -0800
From: jlee@esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee)
Subject: internet virus - look out
I apologize that this is not relevant to our threads but I thought it
was important enough that I'll survive the retaliation...
SUBJECT: VIRUSES--IMPORTANT PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY >>>
>>>> There is a computer virus that is being sent across the
Internet. If you receive an e-mail message with the subject line
"Good Times", DO NOT read the message, DELETE it immediately.
Please read the messages below. Some miscreant is sending e-mail
under the title "Good Times" nation wide, if you get anything like
this, DON'T DOWN LOAD THE FILE! It has a virus that rewrites your
hard drive, obliterating anything on it. Please be careful and
forward this mail to anyone you care about.
********************************************************
WARNING!!!!!!! INTERNET VIRUS
The FCC released a warning last Wednesday concerning a matter of
major importance to any regular user of the Internet.
Apparently a new computer virus has been engineered by a user
of AMERICA ON LINE that is unparalleled in its destructive
capability. Other more well-known viruses such as "Stoned",
"Airwolf" and "Michaelangelo" pale in comparison to the prospects
of this newest creation by a warped mentality. What makes this
virus so terrifying, said the FCC, is the fact that no program
needs to be exchanged for a new computer to be infected. It can be
spread through the existing e-mail systems of the Internet. Once a
Computer is infected, one of several things can happen. If
the computer contains a hard drive, that will most likely be
destroyed. If the program is not stopped, the computer's
processor will be placed in an nth-complexity infinite binary loop
-which can severely damage the processor if left running that way too
long.
Unfortunately, most novice computer users will not realize what is
happening until it is far too late. Luckily, there is one sure means
of detecting what is now known as the "Good Times" virus. It always
travels to new computers the same way in a text email message with
the subject line reading "Good Times". Avoiding infection is
easy once the file has been received- not reading it! The act of
loading the file into the mail server's ASCII buffer causes the "Good
Times" mainline program to initialize and execute.
The program is highly intelligent- it will send copies of itself to
everyone whose e-mail address is contained in a receive-mail file or
a sent-mail file, if it can find one. It will then proceed to trash
the computer it is running on. The bottom line here is - if you
receive a file with the subject line "Good Times", delete it
immediately! Do not read it" Rest assured that whoever's name was
on the "From" line was surely struck by the virus. Warn your
friends and local system users of this newest threat to the Internet!
It could save them a lot of time and money.
=====================================================
~~~~~ / \
//\\\\\ / Jerry D. Lee, Jr. | SEPG Methods & Tools Chairman /
{| ~ ~ |} / Raytheon ESD | E-Mail : jlee@eng.esd.ray.com \
| ^ | / 6380 Hollister Ave | Tel : 805-967-5511 ext2306 \
\ = / \ Goleta, CA 93117 | Fax : 805-964-9185 _/
- --/\-/\-- \ \
\/^\/ \+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=|
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:01:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "David C. Rinker" <dcrink@widomaker.com>
Subject: DMS priming/ "Partial" decoction?
Hi,
I am the guy who primes with "DMS" and have finally mustered the
courage to admit it publicly...actually, ALL of you have been very
kind in not ribbing me too much for that slip and the number of "corny"
jokes was kept to a minimum. I just wish I had known about EDME's
Diastatic Malt Syrup sooner--I could have deftly covered my a** ;).
I now have a question to pose regarding mashing in a Gott cooler.
Those of use who use these coolers know how unwieldly the boiling water
infusions can become in terms of volume and then, the resulting thinner mash
only dictates that the next infusion be even more voluminous. Is there
any reason why I could not do a "partial"decoction instead (I am talking
English style ales here) and just not boil the decoction for no more than a
few minutes?? This would forestall most of the reactions that give
decoction-mashed beers their distinctive flavor profiles and, since
British pale malts are highly-modified in the first place, any other
benefits which a long decoction boil might provide would be minor(No?). Has
anyone tried this, or can anyone offer a reason why I should not try it?
Cheers,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: 1 Feb 1996 10:01:57 -0800
From: "Jonathan Mohn" <jonathan.mohn@AGSM.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Wort Aeration
I have gotten conflicting advice concerning the aeration of my wort.
I usually will remove most of the trub from my wort by chilling the wort down
to 32 degrees, letting it settle overnight, and racking off the trub in the
morning. I've recently read that worts with little trub require considerable
aeration in order to saturate with the correct amounts of oxygen. In fact,
I've read that it is not possible to appropriately oxygenate such wort through
aeration, and that pure oxygen should be introduced.
On the other side of the coin, there are some who believe that aeration /
oxygenation is not required at all, especially if you pitch adequate levels of
yeast. They argue that aeration results in longer lag times, as the yeast
metabolize the sugars aerobically.
What's a brewer to do? Should I continue to take great pains to aerate (and
possibly contaminate) or should I toss in my yeast starter and not give it a
second thought?
Jonathan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 13:30:06 EST
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: Cornstarch & Boiling / Long Mash
Hi All,
In HBD# 1950, Gary S. Kuyat discusses his cornstarch brews:
>This has to do more with my own experience than with a truly scientific
>reasoning. I had noticed lower than expected yields (much lower) with unboiled
>cornstarch. Without boiling, the cornstarch seemed to be "in suspension"
>rather than actually "dissolved".
Bingo, the starch is insoluble prior to boiling, and cannot be converted by
amylase enzymes. At high temperatures, granules of insoluble starch burst,
releasing solubilized starch. The references I've seen cite temperatures from
170F-190F for this to occur. Once the starch is soluble, the liquid should
look clearer, and the starch can now be converted, producing higher yields.
>>2) After 2 hours at 145 why go to 155?
>The decoction taken to get to 155 is boiled. This frees starch from the
>grains which even two hours at 145 seems not to get.
See above. The large, white chunks of grist are mostly insoluble starch, the
amylase enzymes cannot convert it, regardless of how long you hold the mash
at 145F. Boiling the decoction releases soluble starch into the wort.
BTW, at 145F, you will not get significant alpha amylase activity, and hence
very slow conversion. You will get significant *beta* amylase activity at
that temp, which will produce a more fermentable wort. Were it not for the
0.4 lbs of Special B in your recipe, you'd get very well attenuated beer.
A suggestion that may save you some time: Instead of mashing-in at 145F and
holding for 2 hours, you might consider mashing-in at ~125F, hold for 1/2
hour. You're using domestic malt and corn starch as >90% of your grain bill,
a protein rest is probably advisable.
After 1/2 hour, pull the thick decoction. Pull a little more grist than the
40% you've been doing, say 50%, and step to 155F. There is a fair amount of
both beta and alpha amylase activity at 155F, the mash will convert quickly.
You'll finish mashing at least an hour earlier. Given the amount of simple,
fermentable sugars you're getting from mashing a high percentage of soluble
corn starch, I don't think the extended rest at 145F is buying you that much.
I'd expect very little difference in the flavor of the finished beer.
>I believe that there are still enzymes available after 2 hours, and a
You won't denature alpha amylase very quickly at 145F.
>batch made without the decoction at 155 did seem "thinner".
Sure, the decoction and rest at 155F increased melanoidin formation, and
altered the wort sugar profile (more dextrins).
>In case you care, the amounts of 6-row and cornstarch are to give me a mix of
>approx 90degress Lintner (sp?). This figure should be okay for a mash. Any
>issue here?
Don't think so. Most of the pale malt I get has diastatic ratings of ~60
degrees, and this malt can certainly convert itself.
>Finally, brews made with this much extract from corn SUGAR
>instead of corn STARCH tast cidery; why doesn't this?
Pass on this one. The only corn I put in my beers is flaked maize when
brewing Fuller's ESB clones or pre-Prohibition pilsners. I'm almost exclusively
a 100% malt kind of guy.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:34:25 -0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Subject: galvanized pipes
Thanks to all who responded to my question about using galvanized
pipes in my RIMS system (J.Palmer, I tried to reply but it bounced
back). In short, all who responded (presently 5) said "DON'T DO IT",
but could not offer much more, other than the zinc will dissolve into
the wort. Many suggested copper pipes, but I need at least 1" pipes
to house the heating element and I haven't seen copper pipes larger
than 1/2". Anyway,....
So I did a little research on my own and this is what I have found.
Zinc is an essential element in our diet. Too little and you can
suffer from loss of appetite, decrease sense of smell and taste, slow
healing wounds, damaged immune system, poorly developed sex organs in
young men, and child growth retardation in pregnant women (2). It's
also an anti-oxidant (sacrificial anode for your insides?), helpful
in treating acne, and hastens the healing of peptic ulcer disease and
burns (1).
On the other hand, at large doses it can be toxic (just like many
other metals that we brew with). Short term effects of too much zinc
include stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting, while long term exposure
can cause anemia, pancrease damage, and lower levels of the "good"
cholesterol (2). The recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 15mg/day
for men, 12mg/day for women, 10mg/day for children, and 5mg/day for
infants, while levels 10 to 15 times this amount (100 to 250 mg/day)
should be avoided (2). It should also be noted that alcohol washes
zinc and other vitamins from your body (1), so maybe a little extra
in your beer ain't that bad!
As to how it may effect beer, I imagine that if it's good for us in
small doses, it's also good for the yeast. At large doses, it can
impart a metallic taste (3), and the EPA recommends that drinking
water have less than 5ppm simply because of this taste (2). While
the zinc may dissolve in small amounts due to the low pH of the wort,
it doesn't dissolve appreciable into tap water carried through
galvanized pipes (3).
So in summary, I think there has been much overreaction to the use
of galvanized pipes in brewing. It ain't gonna kill ya, and it may
even be beneficial, like throwing copper/pennies into the boil. (I
would be interested to find out how much zinc dissolves into the
wort...anyone up to the challenge?).
References:
(1) Recommendations: Vitamins, Minerals & Trace Elements; Steven B.
Strum M.D.; http://oncolink.upenn.edu/med_onc/nutr94.html
(2) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; ATSDR ToxFAQ;
http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/toxfaqta.html
(3) The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing; David Miller
Keith Royster - Keith.Royster@ponyexpress.com
@your.service - The Affordable Web Page Provider
Mooresville, NC - Specializing in small and medium sized businesses.
Check us out at - http://www.wp.com/@your.service/
Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 13:50:55 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Carbonation and fill level ... more experiments.
Al Korzona writes in HBD #1949:
>Although I had convinced myself (through previous experiments) that the
>final level of carbonation (I did not test carbonation rate) is not
>strongly affected by the fill level, I decided to redo the experiment,
>especially since it is so easy to do. I'll report back in four weeks.
>
>Meanwhile, I'd like to comment on Steavea's expriment. I no longer have
>the original report handy, but I would like to point out that the amount
>of "ffft" that you hear is far more affected by the amount of head space
>than by carbonation level.
Well I initally made an attempt to capture the escaping gas, by
carefully removing the cap thru a thick walled plastic bag, but this
proved too difficult in practice. Al correctly points out that the
ffft noise is not comparable between differently filled bottles.
My ffft noise record doesn't have much more resolution than
none/some/normal/high pressure and admittedly even that evidence is
marginal. My primary purpose in recording it was to attempt to record
when 'normal' fill bottles showed evidence of 'some' to 'normal'
pressure. I was also listening for the mythic 'high' headspace pressure
condition implied by Dave Miller's book. I recorded this info because
it was evident, subjectively measureably and related to the experiment
at hand. It would be dishonest to use it as a sampling criterion and
then not record it in the notes.
[...]> Furthermore, I would respectfully like to
>submit the *possibility* that maybe Stevea was slightly biased by the
>amount of noise he heard when opening the bottles. Perhaps this was
>not the case and I hope that Stevea understands that I'm not trying to
>discredit his work, but rather point out a possible improvement in
>future testing. Specifically, I suggest that the evaluation of the
>carbonation level should be done blind -- that is, have someone else
>open and pour the bottles into randomly numbered glasses. Then have
>the judge describe the carbonation differences based upon sample number
>and without knowing which was which.
Very good idea Al, the blind tasting should provide more convincing
data. If you wish, a blind 'listening' of the bottles is also easy
enough to perform. Since these measurements are all very subjective it
would be best to have an uninterested and competent party perform the
tasting too - NOT the experimenter, but ideally a qualified judge or
at least a knowledgeable and unrelated taster.
BTW it's also easy to argue that I should have been biased by my own
HBD posted expectation of the experiments results. I posted that I
thought Miller was probably right, but my experimental result refutes
this. Unfortunately no experiment is totally free of the forces of
bias, certainly not my simple test. No offense taken Al.
>This is what I intend to do in my experiment and urge anyone else who
>wants to join in, to do likewise. Furthermore, I only filled two bottles
>"high," two "normal," two, "low" and one "very low." Thus, I cannot
>test whether the rate of carbonation is faster with a low fill or not.
>This is why my report will be only after four weeks when all the bottles
>have had sufficient time to carbonate.
Just to make things crystal clear for the HBD -
Al's proposed experiment is NOT testing the same premise as mine, and
the results will NOT be comparable. My experiment intended to test HOW
QUICKLY primed bottles came to 'normal' carbonation levels, with
headspace as a variable. Al's experiment will test FINAL (4 weeks)
carbonation levels, about which my experiment said nothing.
I don't think that there is very much controvesy that primed bottles
will carbonate in 4 weeks, and I have doubts that Al's tongue, as good
as it may be, will reliably detect the modest expected difference in
final carbonation. Perhaps I'll be surprised again tho'.
As far as expected results for Al's experiment go - fermentation
releases very nearly 50% of the fermented sugar mass as CO2. My
priming rate was 22 grams of sugar per gallon and we should expect
near 11 grams of CO2 per gallon to result if it is all fermented. The
different bottle fills of my experiment result in about 12% less beer
in the underfilled bottle, and so we would expect about 12% less CO2
in the FINAL case in the underfilled bottle (!) in spite of the
experimental result that suggest it could carbonate more QUICKLY. The
12% difference (say a drop from 2.5 volumes of CO2 to 2.23 volumes)
might be perceptable in an A vs B side-by-side test, but then again
might not. Certainly identical beer temperature will be necessary for
a reasonable comparison. It's also possible that an overfilled bottle
might not complete bottle fermentation in four weeks, but from my
experimental result this appears unlikely.
Does that agree with your expected result Al ?
My experiment says nothing about FINAL developed pressure, but I still
have enough X-bottles around to perform something close to Al's
experiment - my bottles are at about 5 weeks today. I'll post this
later.
- --
For anyone wishing to duplicate my original experiment may I suggest
the following basic guidelines:
Prime and thoroughly dissolve the priming sugar/extract/wort a volume
of beer to be bottled.
Bottle 6 bottles as full as practical.
Bottle 6 bottles at a level approximately 1 fluid ounce below
'normal' fill levels.
Bottle the remaining beer at 'normal' bottle fill levels.
At 6, 9, 12, 15, 18 and 21 days of age fridg' one normal, one
overfilled and one underfilled bottle for an hour or so and
open and pour all three samples, then begin tasting. Record tasting
notes in a notebook. Preferably a blind tasting, preferable tasted by a
competent taster not involved in or knowledgeable of the experiment.
Post results, including priming material and rate, bottle storage
conditions, temp, SG, FG, type of beer, yeast and anything else that
seems possibly relevent.
If you have reason to believe that the bottle fermentation will take
more or less time you might wish to choose different sample ages by
testing a 'normal' fill bottle, and start performing regular tests as
carbonation first appears in the normal case.
If you don't want to invest 12 bottles in the experiment I'd suggest
dropping tests at age 21, 18, and 6 days in that order. Another,
possibly better, alternative is to test normal vs underfilled bottles
only.
To gather an additional data point to compare with Al's experiment, add
one very underfilled bottle (Al please spec this) to be included in a
4 bottle test at day 28.
- --
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 12:56:46 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Cleaning a carboy.
> From: Bill Rust <wrust@csc.com>
> Subject: Blow Off III
>
> In HBD #1947 Jack writes...
>
> >Cleaning out a carboy that was used for primary fermentation has got
> >to be number one on the list. Compare that to cleaning out a classic
> >7 gallon fermenter.
>
> Couldn't agree more. I got yeast and trub dried on the inside of my glass
> carboy, not pretty...
Whoah now! I know I'm jumping in the middle of this, but is sounds like
you are complaining about the ease of cleaning a glass carboy. (If you're
not, I'll explain anyway, it should benefit someone.)
You can clean pretty much ANYTHING out of a glass carboy by letting it sit
overnight with a strong bleach solution. 1 cup should do it, but you can
do more if you want. Zap! It's all clean. I don't know if you can do that
with plastic. Yeah, you still have to rinse it and all, but it will be
totally clean.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:15:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Extract/Pressure Ferments
Jack in West Point writes about his easymasher:
<I just used this system for the first time last Sunday; got about 31
<points/lb extraction (a little better than my 10 gal system). No
<problems with the sparge, in fact, it only took about 45 minutes to
<collect 6 gals of wort and the runnings were still at an sg of 1.018.
<Pretty good. You can hold about 10-11 lbs of grain while using about
<1.33qts water/lbs grain but that tops off the system; so you can make up
<to about an OG 1.060 brew easily.
Final runnings of 1.018 for a 1.060 beer sounds to me like a lot of
wasted extract. I typically get down to 1.010-1.008 final with a
kettle wort of 1.060 (before boiling). Hummmmm.
Michael reports:
<A local brewpub has a newsletter which has a "brewing tips" column from the
<brewpub's braumeister. A recent tip said that you should let your wort cool
<slowly from boil to 130F - this will improve the clarity of the finished
<beer. Any one else ever hear of this? Any comments?
Hasnt this "braumeister" ever heard of a whirlpool??! Sounds like he
is advising that proper hot break removal will lead to clearer beer, this
is certainly well known. There are lots of methods to do this, the very
old fashioned one is the use of a coolship where gradual cooling and settling
of hot break took place over several hours time. Any decent brewpub
has a whirlpool or a hop back type device to remove hot break without
resorting to long wait periods. Also, 130F is dangerously close to wort
spoilage temps. Id also hate to add several hours to my brew day!
Ken asks:
<There has been referance that fermenting under pressure is not a good
<practice. I have recently tried this and found no noticable effects.
<The idea came from a very good brewer who sugested a 40psi environemnt
<in a corny keg for secondary. He uses this practice, I have and I haven't
<notice any ill effects. Can anyone elaborate on the effects of such a
<practice? Tracy, Al, George, anyone?
Im no expert on this but Ill forward some references that I hope someone
can check out. In Molls brewing text, 'Beers and Coolers' he states that
pressure fermentation is well known and practiced 'widely throughout the
world'. Moll notes that Wellhoener developed the techniques in 1954, and
that it can be used for both ales and lagers. General pressure is 2 bars,
which is about 28 psi. Here is the reference (there are two more too):
Wellhoener, H.J. Ein kontinnierliches Gar-und Reifungsverfahren fur Bier.
Brauwelt, 94, pages 624-626.
I will ask, have you noticed any beneficial effects? I can see spunding
to achieve pressure for carbonation but what else is to be gained (and
you dont need 40 psi to do this)?
Jim Busch
Colesville, Md
------------------------------
Date: 01 Feb 96 14:17:01 EST
From: Lynn Ashley <73744.3234@compuserve.com>
Subject: Thermocouple contamination / Foxx Phone
To: INTERNET:homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
Thanks to you all for keeping the info in the HBD at such a high level.
________________
I hesitated asking this seemingly trivial question thinking the answer is
definitely "no problem". But a twinge of doubt lingered, so here goes.
I use a thermocouple meter to monitor wort/beer temperature. The sensing
element is the tiny wire junction at the end of length of small teflon
insulated wire. The probe has almost no 'thermal inertia' and responds
quickly. Using a digital meter allows the relative sensing of very small
temperature changes.
I snake the tiny stiff thermocouple wire through the air lock and leave a
probe in the liquid of each fermentor. I then plug a meter into a probe
whenever I want to take a reading. I use type K thermocouples which are
listed as being made of 'chromel' and 'alumel' wires. I assume these are
chromium and aluminum alloys respectively. The sensing portion of the probe
is created by striping about 1/16" of the teflon insulation from the wires
and twisting the ends together.
Should I be concerned about possible long term ill effects from the metals
in the tiny probe? I assume the teflon is safe (isn't it?).
________________
I've seen several references to Foxx as a supplier of misc brewing related
equipment. Do they deal with the general public, taking phone orders?
Do they have a catalog? Would someone supply me with the phone number?
________________
Thanks Lynn.
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Lynn Ashley (lajiao ren) Arlington, Virginia, USA |
| 73744.3234@compuserve.com 38.904N 77.120W 105mAMSL |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 14:12:05 EST
From: "William Ryan" <ryanw@ncr.disa.mil>
Subject: Re: Canned Homebrew?
Call me crazy (it wouldn't be the first time!) but if were thinking
about putting beer in cans, is it also feasible (and maybe easier) to
"can" beer in mason jars? Am I missing something having to do with
pressures, etc.?
Bill Ryan
ryanw@ncr.disa.mil
Reston, VA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:49:46 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: More on Grain Volume & Heat Capacity -- Correction
In case my CANCEL didn't get out in time, please see the correction towards
the end of this article:
Spencer Thomas made a comment on my Volume/Heat Capacity figures:
>In my experience, a pound of grain is much larger than 0.32 quart. A
>pound of *water* is half a quart, and grain is lighter than water
>(until you wet it, anyway). Maybe you mean that a pound of grain,
>added to sufficient water, increases its volume by 0.32 quarts?
>
>Malted barley has a heat capacity about 0.3 - 0.4 that of water,
>depending on its moisture content. (Source: a posting by Rob Thomas a
>couple of years ago. I think he got it from Malting & Brewing Science.)
>
>=Spencer
I'm simply quoting some previous postings, although in my experiences with
5-gallon cooler mashing, with a 10-lb grain bill and mash water, the volume
was pretty much 4+ gallons (10 lb x 0.32 qt/lb grain volume + 10lb x 1.3
qt/lb mash water = 4.05 gal) after the strike. Seems there were a bunch of
numbers quoted for the heat capacity along the way; your figures may be
closer to the truth.
Anyhow, your comment about "a pound of grain added to sufficient water
increases is volume by 0.32 quarts" is probably applicable, since that is
what we're doing. Dry grain probably would be "fluffy" enough to occupy more
"apparent" volume, at least until water is added to take up the fluffying
airspace. I do get quite an evolution of bubbles when the strike water is
added.
I would refer you all to excellent articles in
CORRECTION: HBD 1793
(Dan Sherman <dsherman@sdcc3.ucsd.edu>) for the source of my numbers on grain
volume; for heat capacity data I used info in HBD 1880 ("Wallinger, W. A."
<WAWA@chevron.com>) although another post I just now found in HBD 1879
(fredriks@abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik Stahl)) corroborates your numbers.
Thanks for the reality check!
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 14:55:03 CST
From: "Randall S. Thiel" <thiel@slh.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: bumping up starters
On the HBD from 2/1/96:
Steve Adams had mentioned that he didn't want to bother doing 10-fold step
ups to create his yeast pitching slurry.
This is fine as long as you're diligent about your asceptic technique. I
would imagine that the time saved by NOT doing the 10X step-ups is rather
minimal.
The main reason FOR the 10X step-ups (eg., 50ml active starter into 500ml
sterile starter) is to limit the amount of nutrients available to
whatever microbes are present, besides the yeast. That is, it gives the
yeast a good head start on being the dominant bug in the starter at each
point in the step-up. Microbial competition is what it's all about.
By inoculating a small amount of yeast into a large starter solution, the
yeast really doesn't have much of a lead on competing bugs (be it wild
yeast or bacteria).
Another added benefit to stepping-up your starter is that you can aerate
each new sterile starter by shaking it vigorously before you dump the
active starter into it. The yeasties will luv ya for it.
The UNstepped-up starter can't be aerated half-way through it's growth
cycle, 'cuz the vigorous shaking will just release CO2 from the already
active yeast.
Comments? --
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
Randy Thiel "I did not eat the cranberries from
thiel@slh.wisc.edu a dented can I could not trust."
^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:41:48 -0600
From: "David W. Parkin" <dwparkin@mmm.com>
Subject: RE: flocculation
Scott, I read your post that said:
>Now two days into the still very active primary fermentation, there are
>multiple 0.5 cm globules of tan material churning around in the fermenting
>beer with some resting on the bottom and some floating on top. Is this
>some kind of bizzare flocculation that I haven't seen before or is it
>contamination?
I had a similar problem with an ESB several weeks ago. Buring the boil, I
noticed a floc come out of suspension that was not hops. This happened at
170 degrees f. I was well into the process so I thought I should just
continue. The floc stayed in suspension but settled out in the primary. I
had calculated the OG to be 1.048 with 6# extract, 1/2# Crystal 10L and 5
gallons water but it measured in at 1.031 so I measured again - same thing.
The SG after primary was down to 1.008.
I had also thought that I might have added too much water and diluted the
whole batch. Even using conservative water additions in my calculations, I
still came out with an OG of 1.038. I would have had to use 7.5 gallons of
water to get 1.031.
So I asked my brew supplier what gives. The response that I got was that it
was probably protien coming out of suspension from the grains and extract.
He had though that this might work out in the ferment but it hasn't.
Anyway, I don't have an answer for you but this is my story. In a few
weeks, I will have an SELESB (Super Extra Light Extra Special Bitter).
Might only be good for those hot summer days that we will never again see
here in Minnesota (today's high temp...-13.5 degrees f.).
DWP
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 15:41:16 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Krauesening, O-ring lube
>From: Bill Rust <wrust@csc.com>
>
>I am trying my hand at krauesening (?? dang, that's hard to spell...) I'm
>using CP's method for computing the amount of gyle to prime with (1.2 quarts
>@ 1.048 starting gravity to be equivalent to 3/4 cup sugar). However, I
>once heard that this is not 'true krauesening'. To do that you need
>actively fermenting wort. Wouldn't that have a lower gravity, and thus
>lower it's ability to prime? If so, 1) Does anyone have a method for
>computing the amount to add, and 2) At what point in the process? Any help
>on this would be appreciated.
I have never done krauesening but I have wondered about the exact thing you
mention. How can one know how much CO2 has been vented by the time of active
fermentation.
Just a guess but I would try this and see how it seems to work:
If you were to prime with 1.2 quarts at 1.048 starting gravity, then make up
a stronger initial gravity, say maybee 1.058 and let it ferment till you
measure 1.048 and then use that as your priming. I would use a little more
than 1.2 quarts so that I would not need to dump the hydrometer samples back
in. Then add the 1.2 quarts when ready. Don't forget to take notes!
>From: MJT15@infoctr.chrysler.com
>Subject: Mills, Flux, Temp Controllers, Keg Stuff
>
>Keg o-rings both top and in out fitting type need to be replaced when they
>leak or before use in the case of the lid ring to keep from having a
>pepsi-Pils. A neat little trick I use instead of vasaline is to wet the o-ring
>on the in/out fitting with water before pushing on the ball or pin fitting.
>This little bit of lube makes getting them on and off a breeze.
I sprayed just a little bit of PAM (no stick pan spray - food grade) from
the pantry onto my index finger and then rubbed the in and out connector
o-rings. Haven't had any problems and it is amazing how easy the connectors
slide on now.
It may be possible to have head retention problems because of the oil (is
PAM oil?) but I am trying to RDWHAHB and so far all is well.
Ronald J. La Borde "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
Metairie, LA you tend to view every problem as a nail."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 96 14:18:26 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Slow cool/late aeration/aeration vs. oxidation
Michael writes:
>A local brewpub has a newsletter which has a "brewing tips" column from the
>brewpub's braumeister. A recent tip said that you should let your wort cool
>slowly from boil to 130F - this will improve the clarity of the finished
>beer. Any one else ever hear of this? Any comments?
First a question: Does the beer at this brewpub all smell stongly of cooked
corn? The reason I ask is because the procedure you describe is a recipe
for very high levels of DMS in the wort. Much of it will be scrubbed out
by the fermentation, but a slow cool will undoubtedly create so much that
even a very vigorous fermentation will probably have significant DMS in the
nose.
Actually, the opposite of what the brewmaster claims is true. Cold break
forms better the *faster* you chill. Most books (DeClerck and Malting &
Brewing Science, to name two) agree that cold break removal is optional and
should not affect clarity.
***
Ken writes:
>The next morning I got a fresh
>O2 bottle and aerated, though the ferment was just beginning. I am
>curious if this practice may cause oxidation or other ill effects.
>The second aeration was within 12hrs of the first.
I'm afraid I have no experience with fermenting under pressure nor have
I read anything about it other than in HBD, so I'll pass on that question.
Regarding this aeration after 12 hours, I would say that it depends a lot
on the yeast. If you were using Wyeast #1968 London ESB or the Samuel Smith's
yeast from The Yeast Culture Kit Company, I think that chances are you may
have increased diacetyl production slightly. Other yeasts can respond in
other ways -- some negatively. One poster (sorry) reported that Wyeast #1028
London Ale responds to aeration during fermentation by creating excess
acetaldehyde, but I did a small experiment with this yeast and it didn't
really show any increase in acetaldehyde. Therefore, I think that the
original poster's acetaldehyde came from a source other than mid-ferment
aeration.
***
John writes:
>On one hand it's been posted that one should minimize the oxidation of
>the wort. On the other, one reads about these people busting up their
>carboys trying to airate their wort. Personally, I thought oxidation
>was only a problem during and after fermentation.
Aeration benefits the yeast... this is well-documented. The difference
between "good" aeration and oxidation is when you do it. True, aerating beer
after fermentation will cause oxidation of alcohols and other beer compounds.
Also, aerating wort while it is hot will cause oxidation of some malt
compounds which will later give sherry-like aromas and flavours. Waiting
for the wort to cool before adding air is the way to add oxygen for the yeast
while minimizing oxidation. Whether aerating cooled wort removes hop aroma
I'm not sure -- I imagine it does. Perhaps this is partly why dryhopping
gives a much stronger aroma than finish hops. I don't yet know about
how it affects 1st wort hopping (but I'm planning to try it next week).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 18:28:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Pemberton <wfp5p@tigger.itc.virginia.edu>
Subject: Aeration
I've got a question for the folks that use aquarium pumps for aeration.
What the general feeling about the need for an inline sterile filter?
It seems to me that they'd be a required part of the setup, but I may just
be over paranoid...
- --
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 20:10:00 -0500
From: bob@harvey.carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: kegs
i seem to have fixed the pressure leak in my keg. among other things, i used
pipe joint tape on all the things with threads. i also installed a pressure
gauge. total cost for that at a hardware store was $8.14. now i know my beer
is at 22psi. too cool.
bob rogers
bob@carol.net
"Why, Fritz, alcohol is a gift from God..."
--young Fritz Maytag's Mom
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:02:42 +1100 (EST)
From: awalsh@crl.com.au (Andy Walsh)
Subject: fermentation under pressure
Ken writes:
>There has been referance that fermenting under pressure is not a good
>practice. I have recently tried this and found no noticable effects.
>The idea came from a very good brewer who sugested a 40psi environemnt
>in a corny keg for secondary. He uses this practice, I have and I haven't
>notice any ill effects. Can anyone elaborate on the effects of such a
>practice? Tracy, Al, George, anyone?
Charlie wrote a week or 2 ago about a particular article written in JIB on
this very topic, but had not read the article. I was at the library the
other day, and managed to find it. Here is the abstract:
Journal of the Institute of Brewing
March-April 1984. Vol 90. pp 81-84.
"The Response of Saccaromyces Cerevisiae to Fermentation Under Carbon
Dioxide Pressure"
G.J. Arcay Ledezma, J.C. Slaughter
"When laboratory fermenters containing 4 litres of wort were maintained
under a variety of conditions at an excess pressure of 2atm of carbon
dioxide throughout fermentation by Saccaromyces Cerevisiae (NCYC 1108), the
fermentation rate, yeast growth and final concentration of fusel oils all
decreased and the final pH increased. This agrees with reported work on the
effect of carbon dioxide pressure on fermentation by S. carlsbergensis. The
effect of carbon dioxide pressure on the production and removal of vicinal
diketones and their precursors by S. carlsbergensis is known to be variable
but, except at very low temperatures, pressure has either no effect or
increases the rate of removal of these compounds in the final stages of
fermentation. In the present experiments with a strain of S. cerevisiae,
however, carbon dioxide pressure always led to the fresh beer having a
higher level of vicinal diketones and their precursors than the control
fermentation, even at temperatures up to 20C."
Commercial breweries commonly use high temperature lager fermentation to
speed up the brewing process. They often apply CO2 pressure at the end of
fermentation to get maximum benefit with minimum disadvantage. All reports
agree that fusel oil levels can be reduced by applying CO2 pressure
mid-ferment. There is conflicting information on whether diacetyl levels
(the most prominent vicinal diketone flavourwise) stay the same or are
reduced by this process.
The effect of this process with ale yeast is to increase diacetyl levels.
Fusel oils are not uniformally inhibited by CO2.
Some yeast strains lose viability after several generations when fermented
under CO2 pressure.
Conlusions (my own, derived from this report)
Primary fermentation under CO2 will slow the fermentation considerably and
is probably not a good idea.
It appears that with lager yeast, lagering under pressure will reduce fusel
oils and may reduce diacetyl levels, so may be a worthwhile procedure.
Secondary fermention under pressure for ales might increase diacetyl levels.
There appears to be no real benefit for doing this with ales, but for lagers
it may be beneficial.
I would like to back this up with some personal experience. A (now deceased)
member of my brewclub would regularly lager his beer in a postmix keg (corny
keg) rather than at ambient pressure. He used to make excellent lagers. Dave
Miller recommends lagering in bottles (under pressure). I have concerns
about sulphur smells with this method. Some lager yeasts generate a lot of
H2S, which would normally blow off during fermentation and lagering. A
closed system would not allow this noxious gas to escape, possibly leading
to sulphur odour in beer. (I should point out that this is a personal fear
that I have never really verified).
Andy.
*************************************************************
Andy Walsh from Sydney
email: awalsh@world.net (or awalsh@crl.com.au if you prefer)
I still don't know what a Wohlgemuth unit is.
*************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 20:19:11 -0800
From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie@ups.edu>
Subject: Brew Software - I Need Your Input!
Fellow brewers,
I am writing a piece of brewing software for my Computer Science class at
The University of Puget Sound (Tacoma, WA) and I need your input! While I
could easily tailor my program to suit my personal needs, I would like to
eventually distribute it as freeware or shareware. Therefore, I would like
to make it as functional and robust as possible. To that end, I am seeking
input from anyone and everyone about the features that they would like to
see in their dream piece of brewing software.
If you have a minute, would you please send me an email with your thoughts,
ideas and suggestions. I am looking for answers to questions like:
What would you want it to do?
What would you want it to look like?
What do current shareware, freeware or commercial applications do well?
What do current shareware, freeware or commercial applications do poorly?
What figures would you want it to calculate?
What screen resolution are you using? (640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, etc.)
Anything else you want to share! I promise, I won=92t laugh =96 go crazy!
Also, I need Beta testers. If you are using Windows 95 or Windows NT and
could periodically test my application (only two or three times over the
next three months), then please send me an email. I need three or four
testers (first email, first serve).
Your input is greatly appreciated=85 CDR
Clark D. Ritchie
ritchie@ups.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 96 02:05:08 EST
From: djfitzg@VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Travel
HBD,
I will be traveling to the south of France in a couple of weeks, to a city
called Montpellier. I know this area is famous for their wines, but being
the fine beer fanatic that I am, is there anyone who is familier with the
southern region of France, who could recommend a brewery, or clubs featuring
a wide selection of European Beers?
Thanks again for your suggestions.
send private Email.
djfitzg@vnet.ibm.com
Dan Fitzgerald.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1952, 02/03/96
*************************************
-------
